Mt. Laurel Sprawl

Let's Talk Sprawl.

Governor McGreevey, in his State of the State address, declared sprawl to be the source of many, if not most, of the difficulties facing New Jersey.  But his proposed "solutions" do nothing to solve the problem, while imposing great expenses upon suburban residents.

In the first place, his proposal to permit municipalities to impose building moratoria – which probably focus group tested for popularity – runs afoul of clear, unequivocal constitutional provisions.  It simply will not do for a municipality to preclude any use of property while, at the same time, collecting property taxes assessed against it. 

Besides, such a moratorium only delays for a year the inevitable necessity to grapple with development issues.

Impact fees, too, represent questionable policy.  If paying for schools is the rationale for same, they would apply only to housing, not to commercial properties, and driving up the price of new homes is a dubious idea.  After all, "developers" don't pay these fees; home buyers do.

Municipalities already wield broad power to control development, if they are so inclined, with one big, fat hairy exception: Mount Laurel. 

At present, the land use policy of the State of New Jersey is in direct conflict with itself.  On the one hand, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fund open space purchases, to "save" land from development.  At the same time, every municipality labors under a state imposed mandate to site its "fair share" of low and moderate income housing, whether such development is appropriate or not.  Usually, this requires high density development, and the creation of four times as many market units as "affordable" units.  If a municipality must construct 500 units of "affordable" housing, that means it must zone for 2500 new residences.  Instant traffic jam.

McGreevey speaks of improving the cities, while, at precisely the same time, subsidizing – and mandating – the construction of thousands of suburban condos, effectively encouraging people to abandon the cities.  This makes absolutely no sense. 

Any rational state plan revision must start with the elimination of the Mount Laurel doctrine.  Municipalities should be free to pursue their own destiny, and establish appropriate population density, secure in the knowledge that they will not be have some monster development rammed down their throats by the state under the guise of aiding the poor. 

Inappropriately dense development does, in fact, create the problems the Governor recognizes.  It crowds suburban schools, stresses local sewer and water utilities, and produces mammoth traffic snarls.  It degrades the quality of life, stresses the environment, and forces property taxes to skyrocket.  Although not the silver bullet to prevent these dire consequences entirely, elimination of the Mount Laurel doctrine constitutes a major step in the right direction.

The Governor's proposal to expand the open space efforts in Northwest New Jersey merits unqualified support, but the money must come from somewhere.  At present, a substantial fraction of the open space funding is spent in urban municipalities.  While urban parks are good ideas, the simple fact is that farmland, once "lost", cannot be reclaimed.  Better that we should spend the limited funds available preserving "open space" where it exists before we worry about upgrading urban parks.  Open spaces benefit all state residents, not just those who happen to reside in the County in which the lands are located.

But it makes no sense to purchase hundreds of acres of new open spaces only to force the municipality to construct hundreds of condos right next door. 

The words "Mount Laurel" did not part the Governor's lips in his talk.  That calls his sincerity into question, as no plan to stop sprawl can be taken seriously without switching off the engine primarily responsible for driving it.